What Are the True Qualificatons for the EU?

[Nazgûl Killer]

What are they? Being a part of Europe? Being a civilized society?
In that case, why isn't Turkey in the EU yet?
(This is a true question, and I really want an answer )

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The requirements were defined by the Copenhagen criteria in 1993. These are:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.
• The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

These are monitored by the officials of the EU if a state wants to join. Turkey is not able to fulfill these requirements at the moment.

[Каие]

The requirements were defined by the Copenhagen criteria in 1993. These are:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.
• The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

These are monitored by the officials of the EU if a state wants to join. Turkey is not able to fulfill these requirements at the moment.

No wonders the Far Right hate the EU.

[Nazgûl Killer]

No wonders the Far Right hate the EU.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

No wonders the Far Right hate the EU.

And no wonder why the far-left hate it either.

The requirements were defined by the Copenhagen criteria in 1993. These are:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.
• The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

These are monitored by the officials of the EU if a state wants to join. Turkey is not able to fulfill these requirements at the moment.

And no wonder why the USA couldn't be a possible candidate.

The requirements were defined by the Copenhagen criteria in 1993. These are:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.
• The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

[Boyar Son]

And no wonder why the USA couldn't be a possible candidate.

we'll still let you join NATO.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The geography is not the main reason Turkey is not in,Cyprus is not part of Europe.The main problem is that Turkey is very big 70 million people and while they have some cities very well developed their Asian part is very undeveloped.
Another reason is that Turkish agriculture will sufocate European agriculture,they use genetical modified plants who can be produced in huge quatities compared to the natural ones grown by EU member states.
And there is the culture problem.
This information is from one of my teachers who was part of a Romanian delegation to Bruxelles.

PW in the long run i think Russia will join EU,when our dependence on their gas si no more they will have to pick sides because they aren't a Superpower anymore,China's pet,USA's pet or member of EU?Their huge deposits of resouces will help EU and EU will develop Russia to have access to those deposits,it's win-win situation.This will take some time but it can be done.

I didn't say geography is the main reason, i said it is one of the main reasons. I'd rather we remain the trading partner of Russia, than to see European markets overrun by Russian capital and products. And to ever hear Russian word in the European Parliament? The very definition of betraying the victory of west in the cold war. The main problem with Russia, is that she is incapable of thinking in a community such as the European Union, not to mention how would she fit the standards of the Copenhangen criteria, lol.

we'll still let you join NATO.

Excuse me? Most of Europe is part of the NATO already. And NATO is a military organization, not a political community. BTW, the USA "let" countries join the NATO for its own selfish interests, not because we are amiable chaps. Let's be clear, the USA only supports the enlargement of the NATO, if it gains direct benefit from it, for example lengthening the air corridor, establishing new naval or air bases, etc. There are no other considerations here.

You'd think so, because India which is even on a separate tectonic plate and bordered by mountain ranges as well is not regarded as a separate continent. Despite objectively having more reasons to be regarded as such.

Next time, you'll meet up Michael Leigh, Director-General for Enlargement, please tell him about your theory of India and the tectonic plates. He will be astonished, I promise.

Ow yeah, totally avoiding having to answer it. maybe because there is no rational argument except for tradition?

Actually, tradition is a pretty good argument. You don't rush into an exclusive country club, demanding your own golf course and a welcome dinner for you, if you are not speaking the language, don't know the local customs and make your dog poo on the rug. Likewise, you don't rush into the European Union without having acquired the following at one point of your history: Greek philosophy, Christianity, Roman law, Freedom of Science and Arts, Enlightement, Democracy, should I go on? It isn't discrimination, it's exclusiveness.

Russia doesn't agree with those borders, and the Caucasus countries themselves have varying views.
Continents are only so because of conventions, because every one with an ounce of intelligence sees that were they to use real objective criteria Europe and Asia would be the same .
Conventions change.

Everything is a convention, even the Constitution of the USA, the interpretation of the Bible, or the current scientific paradigmas. So?

According to an arbitrarily chosen convention that ignores geography, culture and what not whenever it doesn't suit it.

Except Colombia lies on a different tectonic plate and there's like half a dozen countries between Mexico and Colombia.

Now you're coming with the tectonic plates again? Staggering. How many more times will you miss the point?

What irony? I'm saying there's no true border between Asian and Europe, because they're essentially the same.
The reason Turkey is regarded as Asian is tradition, there are no objective reasons otherwise.

The Copenhagen criteria are not objective enough for you? Human rights, democracy, market economy... which one of them are you not able to grasp?

(and your Rome comment kinda sucks, since they had nowhere near half of Europe and half the Roman Empire was actually Asian and African. Besides ask a random Greek from 200 BC who he had most in common with: an Iberian, or a Persian?)

Interesting point, hard to respond to.

[ivan_the_terrible]

The requirements were defined by the Copenhagen criteria in 1993. These are:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.
• The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Is this all of them?

It just seems strange that there is no requirement of a country being geographically in europe, in order to join the european union...

I mean, Japan can fulfil all of those requirements better than some current members...could they theoretically apply for membership?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Is this all of them?

It just seems strange that there is no requirement of a country being geographically in europe, in order to join the european union...

I mean, Japan can fulfil all of those requirements better than some current members...could they theoretically apply for membership?

If they practically choose to pack up and move to the green area, theoretically yes, they have a chance.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[paokmam]

The requirements were defined by the Copenhagen criteria in 1993. These are:

• Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.
• The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

These are monitored by the officials of the EU if a state wants to join. Turkey is not able to fulfill these requirements at the moment.

Υοu said it all! I totally agree!

[Tiwaz]

Υοu said it all! I totally agree!

Except it missed the biggest requirement. Or rather, ONLY requirement.

"EU members must unanimously vote you into the club."

Nothing stops EU nations from voting member in regardless of those requirements mentioned before, and nothing stops them from refusing to accept applicant regardless of fulfilling the requirements mentioned before.

Fulfilling them just makes it more likely that they are willing to take you in, but ultimately applicant must convince whole EU that they bring more good than bad with them.



As for Rome and his ing about process which UK practices when dealing with EU issues.

How about whining about your own government. EU does not demand that members must not hold referendums, that is up to each member.

Rome, stop pretending that EU is the evil Empire forcing poor Britain to yield to it's will. It is your own government which denies you your referendum. Government elected by YOU and your countrymen. Either by casting vote in favor of them or by passively not voting at all.

If your government is acting against whatever passes for constitution in your country, how about taking it to court or whatever means your nation has for solving such issues. Stop pretending it is somehow fault of EU if you guys can't sort out things in your own little island.

[Nazgûl Killer]

Oh, I see. Thank you very much, PW. Been a great help.

[Treize]

Political Union

[Norpheus]

What does it matter, if Romania and Bulgaria can pass, those requirements are worthless.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

What does it matter, if Romania and Bulgaria can pass, those requirements are worthless.

Romania and Bulgaria achieved the main requirements. But you are right there are other considerations as well, like stabilizing a region in the vicinity of the EU.

[Norpheus]

Romania and Bulgaria achieved the main requirements. But you are right there are other considerations as well, like stabilizing a region in the vicinity of the EU.

The strange thing is that they do somehow

[Nazgûl Killer]

Another question, where is the EU headquarters? (If it exists)

[Dracula]

Another question, where is the EU headquarters? (If it exists)

It's this street, on which Jack the killer does his job.../fighting to remeber the name/..

[Sebdeas]

Most main offices are in Brussels and the European parliament alternates between Strasbourg and Brussels.

[Treize]

Since when you're far-right?